Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging a resolution plan approval, affirming that once all resolution applicants had submitted their final plans by the deadline, no further financial enhancements could be permitted. The appellant's plan was properly deliberated by the CoC and rejected in favor of another plan that received 98% approval. The Tribunal emphasized that commercial wisdom of the CoC holds paramount status with minimal scope for judicial intervention, as established in K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank. The NCLAT noted that Regulation 39(1A) of CIRP Regulations is merely enabling and does not mandate modification of plans. Since all applicants had equal opportunity to submit revised plans within the allowed timeframe, no grounds existed to interfere with the impugned order.
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal challenging a resolution plan approval, affirming that once all resolution applicants had submitted their final plans by the deadline, no further financial enhancements could be permitted. The appellant's plan was properly deliberated by the CoC and rejected in favor of another plan that received 98% approval. The Tribunal emphasized that commercial wisdom of the CoC holds paramount status with minimal scope for judicial intervention, as established in K. Sashidhar vs. Indian Overseas Bank. The NCLAT noted that Regulation 39(1A) of CIRP Regulations is merely enabling and does not mandate modification of plans. Since all applicants had equal opportunity to submit revised plans within the allowed timeframe, no grounds existed to interfere with the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
